I cannot believe the righteous judgements and harsh words of some people's posts!

Many of the "reasons" listed in the first post are inaccurate or opinions.

Have any of you ever seen a man who had to have a circumcision for medical reasons!? It looks like a swollen, painful, bloody broken hockey stick!
The healing time was longer than 6 weeks!
He still hates the difference in skin coloration!
THAT is more barbaric than strapping a baby down for a few seconds and having the procedure done. YES it is incredibly disturbing, but infants heal way faster than a full grown man does, and this is why you PAY for a local anesthetic and swaddle your child's legs to ease the pain. Tylenol can help too. I would rather have that then know that he will more than likely have to have the procedure done as an adult. (The problem runs in the family.)
To each their own!

Yes, of course I have seen (and done cares on) an adult "needing" (supposedly) a circ as an adult once or twice in my entire career. However, I've also seen a lot worse surgeries more commonly that adults have to endure. For instance, limb amputations (fairly common in nursing home patients, especially in diabetics) Mastectomies. Debris-ment of open infected pressure ulcers. Colostomy bag placement (and subsequent tissue debrisment when the area gets infected)
Many, many, many other more invasive, more painful, and more gruesome procedures and surgeries that are not only much worse, but much more common than a circumcision.

It seems odd to "circumcise someone to spare them from a circumcision"....
Many of my siblings, including myself, have had to have tonsils removed because of infection. It SUCKED. But I'm not going to have my newborns tonsils removed just to prevent that maybe needing to be done later.
Breast cancer runs VERY strongly in some families. I wouldn't dream of giving my newborn baby a mastectomy just to prevent an "inevitable" mastectomy later on. Some adult women choose to have "preventative mastectomies" done because breast cancer runs so strongly in their family. But that is THEIR CHOICE, as an informed adult.

I know what you are trying to say, and I do feel sorry for anyone to has to go through the procedure later on in life (and actually at ANY point in life, including newborns) But when you stop and think it through, it is not a logical argument, not for circumcision, and not for any other preventative amputative surgery.

For those who are vehemently opposed to circs, are you also opposed to ear piercings of babies and little girls?

Don't really know if this question is meant for me, because I wouldn't say I vehemently oppose circumcision. To me it's more about the logics of it or a basic common sense thing. Having worked in the medical field for many years, you start to view things from a medical/statistical standpoint.

But to me, I don't see ear piercing even in the same realm of circumcision. Ear piercing is a simple puncture in the skin, that literally takes one second to do, minimal pain, much like a vaccination or other injection or blood draw.
It doesn't carry the same risks as circumcision does, and you aren't amputating a beneficial and functioning body part like you do with circumcision.
If the girl grows up and decides she does not want to have that specific body alteration, she can simply remove the earrings and let the holes close. Not so with circumcision.

If you wanted to compare it more fairly, you'd have to compare it to strapping a baby down and cutting its ears off.

Don't really know if this question is meant for me, because I wouldn't say I vehemently oppose circumcision. To me it's more about the logics of it or a basic common sense thing. Having worked in the medical field for many years, you start to view things from a medical/statistical standpoint.

But to me, I don't see ear piercing even in the same realm of circumcision. Ear piercing is a simple puncture in the skin, that literally takes one second to do, minimal pain, much like a vaccination or other injection or blood draw.
It doesn't carry the same risks as circumcision does, and you aren't amputating a beneficial and functioning body part like you do with circumcision.
If the girl grows up and decides she does not want to have that specific body alteration, she can simply remove the earrings and let the holes close. Not so with circumcision.

If you wanted to compare it more fairly, you'd have to compare it to strapping a baby down and cutting its ears off.

I read that a lot of the argument is letting the child decide for themselves if they want the procedure done. Its the same with ear piercing right? Maybe the child wont want her ears pierced. Shouldnt she decide for herself rather than mom or dad decide for her?

I never heard of earring holes closing. DH has his ears pierced and now he hates it. He hasnt worn earrings in 15 years and his holes are still open. How do they fuse together if the hole has already healed around the stud after many many years has passed?

__________________
"The government has the media under its thumb and this enables it to sway the emotions of the masses". ~ Albert Einstein

I read that a lot of the argument is letting the child decide for themselves if they want the procedure done. Its the same with ear piercing right? Maybe the child wont want her ears pierced. Shouldnt she decide for herself rather than mom or dad decide for her?

I never heard of earring holes closing. DH has his ears pierced and now he hates it. He hasnt worn earrings in 15 years and his holes are still open. How do they fuse together if the hole has already healed around the stud after many many years has passed?

Oh, I totally know what you are saying. And I personally oppose baby ear piercing myself for the reasons you said. I just don't think it's even on the same page as circumcision, that's all I'm saying.
And by "growing shut", I simply mean that the hole will close and there will only be a small scar left. I have several ear piercings that I took out long ago, and you can't even see anything where they used to be.

And to me, the ear piercing thing is more of a personal decision. I've never heard anyone say that they pierced their baby's ears for medical benefits. And if they did, I would surely argue with them.
The part that I am "arguing" on this issue is the people that claim circumcision should be done for medical reasons, when I know both from years of personal experience, and from the stance of medical associations, that it is not so.
If somebody KNEW that there is no medical benefit to circ, but did it anyway because of personal reasons, I'm not going to use my opinion to argue with them. I might really strongly disagree with it, but I'm not going to argue the medical disadvantages of it like I would if they were trying to claim the necessity of it.

I also wanted to clarify, I'm not sure if the "judgmental" comment was directed at me, but I don't mean to be judgmental at all.

Like I said, I have come to analyze things from a purely medical standpoint. There are TONS of completely inaccurate myths about circumcision that I have heard, and I simply want to put correct info out there.
I'm not trying to attack anyone personally. But I have cared for hundreds if not thousands of men in my career, so when I talk about the medical disadvantages of circ, it's not from any lack of experience.

Yes I'm opposed to it, but it's from a medical standpoint and not a judgmental one. If I know of anyone who is "vehemently" opposed to circumcision, it is doctors other colleagues in the healthcare field that I know, more than any other opposers that I have seen!

So I'm sorry if I offended anyone or caused any hurt feelings. I just thought that since I have had such experience with this, along with the stance from healthcare associations and doctors, that I would just share my "insider" input, since very few people have actually worked with and done personal cares on men to actually know first hand.

I cannot believe the righteous judgements and harsh words of some people's posts!

Many of the "reasons" listed in the first post are inaccurate or opinions.

Have any of you ever seen a man who had to have a circumcision for medical reasons!? It looks like a swollen, painful, bloody broken hockey stick!
The healing time was longer than 6 weeks!
He still hates the difference in skin coloration!
THAT is more barbaric than strapping a baby down for a few seconds and having the procedure done. YES it is incredibly disturbing, but infants heal way faster than a full grown man does, and this is why you PAY for a local anesthetic and swaddle your child's legs to ease the pain. Tylenol can help too. I would rather have that then know that he will more than likely have to have the procedure done as an adult. (The problem runs in the family.)
To each their own!

My dh was circ'd later in life for supposed medical reasons. They probably could have done something else to help him, but of course doctors like to make money and many do not know about the intact penis. This was before we had met, and he is not the type to question things, or do research. Yes, it was painful for my dh after the procedure, however, he had proper pain relief during, and most importantly he had a say in the matter. The difference is that a newborn does not have a say, no voice, cannot have proper pain relief, and it is not a necessary medical procedure. It is considered cosmetic, which is why most insurance providers are no longer covering it. I am sure it hurts for little babies to pee on an open wound, but all they can do is cry. It is quite rare for a properly cared for intact male to actually NEED a circ later in life, and to circ all newborns to avoid this very slim risk isn't recommended, by any medical organization in world for that matter.